Thank you so much for this timely intervention, if only this were part of wider critical discourse. I would be interested in hearing or reading more about the "pathology of D" which you mention, if I understood correctly. But all in all, thank you for giving shape to something which is really preoccupying me at the moment. It suddenly makes sense.
Prof.don can you make a series of videos about how the life experience and personality of every psychoanalyst from freud and beyond shaped his psychoanalytic views and theories , it would be awesome
Hi again Don! I am currently reading Edward Edingers book Ego and Self: The Old Testament Prophets. Jung is often both enigmatic and very complex, although intriguing with great depth. Edinger's work is, on the contrary, quite accessible and short. When I read Klein's work on PS and D followed by Edinger's description of the Ego's encounter with the Self, I am even more convinced that it is a shame that the two contributions to individuation has not been integrated yet within psychoanalysis. If you have not read Edinger's work, I highly recommend you to examine Ego and Self. I have one major reservation with the work though. He insists upon viewing the Self as a psychological property or phenomenon. That presumption is clearly premature. So is also the opposite idea that the Self is somehow supernatural. The Self invites us, I would say, into the utter mysterious nature of consciousness itself. It is a progression from a deluded state of consciousness in PS to a more integrated realistic outllok in D, to an utter non-conceptual mystery in S. I highly doubt that Jung ultimately thought of the Self in psychological terms, although I cannot prove the point. It is just my best philosophical intuition for whatever it is worth. I suppose that Klein's work has not been integrated with Jung's idea about the greater Self because ultimately the individuation process appears to progress from psychology into the very nature of being itself, which effectively transcends all our thinking and all our conceptual efforts. "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." Is there possibly is a conscious silence amongst scholars such as yourself that ultimately there can be no theoretical integration between the Self and the rest of the psychological work on maturation? I think some kind of integration is both highly called for and impossible at the same time. I seriously wonder to what extent my outlook is shared by scholars within the field. Best. J
@@doncarvethI have just completed the reading of Edinger's Ego and Self, and Ego and Archetype respectively. It would be good to start with the latter. It is very complete, whereas Ego and Self consists of edited lectures on biblical prophets, which makes it incredibly interesting but nevertheless somewhat specialized. Ego and Archetype attempts to be a complete synthesis of Jung's most fundamental concepts with a special focus on the overarching issue of individuation. Ego and Archetype also contains a chapter on Christ as the paradigm of the individuating ego, which Is particularly relevant for the issues I adressed above on growth from PS to D, and from D to Self. Best
Don, I have asked you before to consider giving a brief presentation about Jungs psychology. Now, I think I can be somewhat more specific in my wish. Your focus on the conscience vs the superego is great. How does it relate to Jungs distinction between the ego and the Self? My impression is that we connect deeper and better to our innate conscience as we transcend the ego and realize that we are really the true self. Conscience appears to be as aspect of the true self; the aspect that provides guidance and moral voice. The superego seems to be an important oart of the ego according to Jung. Would love to hear your insight on this matter! Take care!
Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Thanks to Jakob and Lusensky, a union analyst in Berlin, I came to read Jung’s 1958 essay, “a psychological view of conscience,” in which he clearly distinguishes the socially constructed, super ego from the conscience which he argues has an archetypal basis, by which I take him to mean a natural foundation. I agree that conscience is grounded in winnicott’s true self. For me to do a video lecture on young, I would have to do considerable study. Oddly, I started out as a Jungian but realized I had so much shadow work to do when I needed a Freudian analysis. I think that was the right decision. But now, if I have time, I would like to immerse myself in Jungian theory. I’ve noticed over the years that when I read papers at conferences, it is usually the.Jungians who respond most favourably to my work as it happens I will be speaking before long online toNy guans in Australia. Thanks. Think of this as an old Freudian/Kleinian belatedly overcoming a prejudice.
Thanks indeed for this rich reply! Good luck with the online lecture by the way. Hopefully, you will post it here eventually. I made significant progress myself during the first say 7 years of inner work, in a way that conceptually corresponds quite neatly to Klein's general description of maturation in terms of the transition from the PS- to the D-position. I cannot help but compare this early episode of growth to Jungs notion of individuation and my own process of maturation after the initial years. The awakening to the true Self and the maturation process thereafter, which means that we come to embody the outlook of the true self more and more, seems to be deeper and more profound than the process of maturation described by Klein. As a layman I would say that she describes the crucial maturation of the ego, whereas Jung's notion of individuation strives to capture the maturation beyond ego, i.e. a process that involves a gradually stronger alignment with the true self. Perhaps it would be wise to talk about transitioning from PS (predominantly PS functioning that is) to D, and from D eventually to S (to predominantly true Self and conscience based functioning). Think about Paul's conversion to Christ in the Bible. Let us think about it psychologically rather than religiously or metaphysically. After Christ revelation, Paul lost his personal orientation in life. In fact, he described himself as a servant and slave to Christ. I take this to mean that his ego one day encountered the greater self and became deeply transformed through the process. Eventually he lived in and through the greater self, and his life was dedicated to serve Christ, his source or love, viz. conscience. I think it is vital that we, within psychology and spirituality, can provide a general description of the full potential of human growth and the major developmental steps involved. Your work on conscience is great, but I do think there is a need to flesh out the individuation process from Klein and beyond. I would encourage you to contribute to that aim, with or without any further exposition of Jungs ideas. I loved your book on guilt, but I don't understand if you think that a solid connection to conscience is essentially an aspect of D-functioning or if it is potentially also an integral part of let's say S functioning? Yours in discourse, Jonas
Yes, I do think that an individuation process in which the personality comes to centre on the conscience, and true self, rather than the ego is essentially what I’m saying, but it does need further clarification along these lines.
Yes, that contribution would bridge Klein's and Jung's work and in itself be an important contribution to the understanding of individuation/maturation. I presume it would also provide unity to the field of psychoanalysis. The division between Jungian and Freudian/Kleinian analysis is, arguably, misleading since they cover different phases of psychological growth.
You didn’t bring it up here, but I was remembering your comment that sometimes the PS position is necessary, as when Hitler had to be killed. But do I really have to hate Hitler to kill him? I can do it out of love for everyone else, which overrides my awareness that Hitler was not pure evil. Actually, when asked if he could go back in time to kill him, the Dalai Lama said he’d do it, but with all the love in the world. Eastern religion allows for this kind of compassionate murder. Certainly we’d have to detach from our usual view of persons-carriers of permanent attributes. But that’s what Buddhism’s about. It is in fact impossible to kill the Hitler who committed those atrocities. At best we can only kill a Hitler likely to commit others.
Dr Carveth i was watching one of your videos and you werr saying that psychopaths often are good at Empathy. How can one have a lack of good object and therefore become a psychopath and have empathy?
By empathy, I mean, merely the cognitive act of imagining your self in the other shoes. Psychopaths are good at this which is why they can be successfully manipulative. Empathy is not sympathy. The psychopath knows how you feel, but doesn’t care.
I think you confuse reactionary for utilitarian. The problem is of being overwhelmed and pessimistic -- not of being ill-considered, wrong, or unethical. They seek sangha yet you decry dharma, or so it seems.
Thank you so much for this timely intervention, if only this were part of wider critical discourse. I would be interested in hearing or reading more about the "pathology of D" which you mention, if I understood correctly. But all in all, thank you for giving shape to something which is really preoccupying me at the moment. It suddenly makes sense.
Very good, most welcome.
Wow that was great🙏🌷 thank you so much
Prof.don can you make a series of videos about how the life experience and personality of every psychoanalyst from freud and beyond shaped his psychoanalytic views and theories , it would be awesome
Already done to some degree by Atwood install a row in a book called “faces in a cloud”
Hi again Don! I am currently reading Edward Edingers book Ego and Self: The Old Testament Prophets. Jung is often both enigmatic and very complex, although intriguing with great depth. Edinger's work is, on the contrary, quite accessible and short. When I read Klein's work on PS and D followed by Edinger's description of the Ego's encounter with the Self, I am even more convinced that it is a shame that the two contributions to individuation has not been integrated yet within psychoanalysis. If you have not read Edinger's work, I highly recommend you to examine Ego and Self.
I have one major reservation with the work though. He insists upon viewing the Self as a psychological property or phenomenon. That presumption is clearly premature. So is also the opposite idea that the Self is somehow supernatural. The Self invites us, I would say, into the utter mysterious nature of consciousness itself. It is a progression from a deluded state of consciousness in PS to a more integrated realistic outllok in D, to an utter non-conceptual mystery in S. I highly doubt that Jung ultimately thought of the Self in psychological terms, although I cannot prove the point. It is just my best philosophical intuition for whatever it is worth.
I suppose that Klein's work has not been integrated with Jung's idea about the greater Self because ultimately the individuation process appears to progress from psychology into the very nature of being itself, which effectively transcends all our thinking and all our conceptual efforts.
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Is there possibly is a conscious silence amongst scholars such as yourself that ultimately there can be no theoretical integration between the Self and the rest of the psychological work on maturation?
I think some kind of integration is both highly called for and impossible at the same time. I seriously wonder to what extent my outlook is shared by scholars within the field.
Best. J
Thank you. I am planning to read him and others, and perhaps begin to work on this.
@@doncarvethInteresting!
@@doncarvethI have just completed the reading of Edinger's Ego and Self, and Ego and Archetype respectively. It would be good to start with the latter. It is very complete, whereas Ego and Self consists of edited lectures on biblical prophets, which makes it incredibly interesting but nevertheless somewhat specialized. Ego and Archetype attempts to be a complete synthesis of Jung's most fundamental concepts with a special focus on the overarching issue of individuation. Ego and Archetype also contains a chapter on Christ as the paradigm of the individuating ego, which Is particularly relevant for the issues I adressed above on growth from PS to D, and from D to Self. Best
Ok. I just finished reading Murray Steins account of Jung’s work. I will move on to Ettinger.
Don, I have asked you before to consider giving a brief presentation about Jungs psychology. Now, I think I can be somewhat more specific in my wish. Your focus on the conscience vs the superego is great. How does it relate to Jungs distinction between the ego and the Self? My impression is that we connect deeper and better to our innate conscience as we transcend the ego and realize that we are really the true self. Conscience appears to be as aspect of the true self; the aspect that provides guidance and moral voice. The superego seems to be an important oart of the ego according to Jung. Would love to hear your insight on this matter! Take care!
Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Thanks to Jakob and Lusensky, a union analyst in Berlin, I came to read Jung’s 1958 essay, “a psychological view of conscience,” in which he clearly distinguishes the socially constructed, super ego from the conscience which he argues has an archetypal basis, by which I take him to mean a natural foundation. I agree that conscience is grounded in winnicott’s true self. For me to do a video lecture on young, I would have to do considerable study. Oddly, I started out as a Jungian but realized I had so much shadow work to do when I needed a Freudian analysis. I think that was the right decision. But now, if I have time, I would like to immerse myself in Jungian theory. I’ve noticed over the years that when I read papers at conferences, it is usually the.Jungians who respond most favourably to my work as it happens I will be speaking before long online toNy guans in Australia. Thanks. Think of this as an old Freudian/Kleinian belatedly overcoming a prejudice.
Thanks indeed for this rich reply! Good luck with the online lecture by the way. Hopefully, you will post it here eventually.
I made significant progress myself during the first say 7 years of inner work, in a way that conceptually corresponds quite neatly to Klein's general description of maturation in terms of the transition from the PS- to the D-position.
I cannot help but compare this early episode of growth to Jungs notion of individuation and my own process of maturation after the initial years.
The awakening to the true Self and the maturation process thereafter, which means that we come to embody the outlook of the true self more and more, seems to be deeper and more profound than the process of maturation described by Klein.
As a layman I would say that she describes the crucial maturation of the ego, whereas Jung's notion of individuation strives to capture the maturation beyond ego, i.e. a process that involves a gradually stronger alignment with the true self.
Perhaps it would be wise to talk about transitioning from PS (predominantly PS functioning that is) to D, and from D eventually to S (to predominantly true Self and conscience based functioning).
Think about Paul's conversion to Christ in the Bible. Let us think about it psychologically rather than religiously or metaphysically. After Christ revelation, Paul lost his personal orientation in life. In fact, he described himself as a servant and slave to Christ. I take this to mean that his ego one day encountered the greater self and became deeply transformed through the process. Eventually he lived in and through the greater self, and his life was dedicated to serve Christ, his source or love, viz. conscience.
I think it is vital that we, within psychology and spirituality, can provide a general description of the full potential of human growth and the major developmental steps involved.
Your work on conscience is great, but I do think there is a need to flesh out the individuation process from Klein and beyond. I would encourage you to contribute to that aim, with or without any further exposition of Jungs ideas.
I loved your book on guilt, but I don't understand if you think that a solid connection to conscience is essentially an aspect of D-functioning or if it is potentially also an integral part of let's say S functioning?
Yours in discourse, Jonas
Yes, I do think that an individuation process in which the personality comes to centre on the conscience, and true self, rather than the ego is essentially what I’m saying, but it does need further clarification along these lines.
Yes, that contribution would bridge Klein's and Jung's work and in itself be an important contribution to the understanding of individuation/maturation. I presume it would also provide unity to the field of psychoanalysis. The division between Jungian and Freudian/Kleinian analysis is, arguably, misleading since they cover different phases of psychological growth.
Can you please make a video about self deception and your views on it and what you think about it
Click on the video link at the top left and look for my video on defence mechanisms
You didn’t bring it up here, but I was remembering your comment that sometimes the PS position is necessary, as when Hitler had to be killed. But do I really have to hate Hitler to kill him? I can do it out of love for everyone else, which overrides my awareness that Hitler was not pure evil. Actually, when asked if he could go back in time to kill him, the Dalai Lama said he’d do it, but with all the love in the world. Eastern religion allows for this kind of compassionate murder. Certainly we’d have to detach from our usual view of persons-carriers of permanent attributes. But that’s what Buddhism’s about. It is in fact impossible to kill the Hitler who committed those atrocities. At best we can only kill a Hitler likely to commit others.
Sorry, ideas Luke “compassionate murder” and “democratic centralism” strike me as “doublespeak”
Dr Carveth i was watching one of your videos and you werr saying that psychopaths often are good at Empathy. How can one have a lack of good object and therefore become a psychopath and have empathy?
By empathy, I mean, merely the cognitive act of imagining your self in the other shoes. Psychopaths are good at this which is why they can be successfully manipulative. Empathy is not sympathy. The psychopath knows how you feel, but doesn’t care.
@@doncarvethwhat’s more, they can coldly imagine how you must feel and use it against you.
I think you confuse reactionary for utilitarian. The problem is of being overwhelmed and pessimistic -- not of being ill-considered, wrong, or unethical. They seek sangha yet you decry dharma, or so it seems.
"By any means necessary"-Saul Alinsky
Including incest.